Gravity Problem Solved

Well, anyone who starts a thread with the title "Gravity Problem Solved" has got to be on shakey ground, especially when they then start talking about something that isn't regarded as a problem at all.

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

You were talking about the concept being unexplained by Newtonian mechanics. It has been shown that it is well qualitatively explained by Newtonian mechanics to a good approximation (no huge masses or relativistic velocities) and the sizes of objects are such that you do not need to invoke quantum mechanics. Now you have jumped to quantum particle exchange issues. I think you must first explain why you think the simple Newtonian explanations are wrong before delving into gravitational waves and gravitons. This is simply moving the goalposts.

"Common_sense_seeker" If you insist on posting stuff like that please restrict it to just one thread.Anyway the simple answer to "If it is by a particle, then it would have to have a large mass, would it not?"is "no".

graham.d, I'm simply replying to Brian Cox's TV programme 'What's Wrong With Gravity?'. He states quite clearly that if the LHC experiment, start-up tomorrow, shows that the Standard Model is incorrect, then it is extremely likely that there is a fundamental mis-understanding of the nature of gravity. I'm stating that I think I can see the problem and that it boils down to the fact that Newton's vision and subsequent equation of universal gravitation is wrong. It's crystal clear in my mind.

We all know and agree that Newton's theory of Gravitation is wrong and I think most of us would agree that all the theories (about everything) are probably wrong and it just a matter of time before they are shown to be so. The question is "how wrong?" Newton's theory (obviously) does not take into account relativistic effects or quantum effects but has been shown to be a very good predictor of reality away from the extremes where these effects apply. Motions of planets, including the moon going around the earth, is well within the scope of using Newtonian mechanics and getting a reasonably accurate result. It falls down in a predictable way with the high gravitation of the sun acting on the close orbit of Mercury where it can be shown that General Relativity does a better job. GR accurately predicts gravitational lensing, and many other effects, which Newtonian mechanics would not, and all of the limits of applicability are reasonably predictable. Black Holes at their event horizons need to invoke quantum gravitational effects and the theory here starts to be debatable. And when it comes to unifying the theories into a coherent whole, there are several variations posed all of which are consistent with observations to date. The work with the LHC can eliminate a number of these theories. None of this is likely to change our calculations or reasoning about the moon's orbit around the earth.

You could argue that, even now, we could think of how gravity works in a number of ways. For example, the moon could be in a gravitational field or it could simply be following a geodesic. The results would come out the same to a high level of precision. It seems to me that your suggestions of how the moon affects tides is nothing at all to do with the subtleties of any unified theories, but is trying to qualitatively pose an alternative explanation for tides for which there is no justification or supporting evidence. Any new theory that may emerge as a result of experiments with the LHC will have to support existing observations and all of these observations to do with gravity (made so far) are wholly consistent (within there ranges of applicability) to Newtonian Theory of Gravitation or GR.

graham.d, I'm proposing that Newton's theory of gravity is totally wrong. He's missed out the fact that it has a directional component. What about the Pioneer probe gravity anomalies that NASA are wrestling with?

What do you mean by a "directional component"? Centres of masses attract (Newton), which is directional. It what sense do you mean it? And what has this got to do with the moon and the tides anyway? Your ideas here seem at odds with any theory. The Pioneer probe anomalies may have nothing whatever to do with gravity - there are many theories. As I said before, any new theory has to be compatible with measurements and as the existing theories are compatible (as far as planetary motion and many other effects are concerned), it means that any new theory has to be compatible with the older theories within the range of applicability.

graham.d, I believe that matter was created as spinning 'energy' from a point source until the big bang event occurred. I believe that this spinnning energy was only emitting gravity perpendicular to it's main axis of rotation. A bit like a spinning pencil that doesn't emit gravity out of either end of it's main axis. I don't expect you to agree of course.

It seems that you are not aware that photons, which are massless, carry momentum.

Do you also not understand that, since it predicts the highest tides in the wrong places and a non-spinning moon, your theor is totally wrong?Newton might not have taken account of relativity, but you are not taking account of reality. That's not science- it's trolling.

Please understand that for your ideas to be taken seriously, you need to supply more than a series of buzzwords linked together. For any new theory proposed (not just by you), the ideas must be explained clearly and quantitatively, and they must also be consistent with observational results. Also please bear in mind that any post without these kind of testable predictions which start out saying "everyone else is wrong and I have come up with the theory of everything" is likely to be treated with scepticism at best and ridicule at worst. The place I work gets several letters a month detailing new universal theories, and almost all of them follow the same pattern we've seen in this thread. Most of them do get credit for attempting the maths, but have made a flawed assumption or two close to the start. New ideas are ALWAYS welcome, but they must be based in the scientific method!

Trying to pick holes in an established theory does not automatically make your alternative right, especially when you specifically say you are refusing to do the relevant maths. Maybe you are concerned that if you do, your theory will not agree with observations? If you want to pursue this, either post fully testable (or at least consistent) predictions of your new theory or, if you are concerned about your work being stolen, I would suggest writing it up as a paper and sending it to a journal for peer-review (such as MNRAS). I look forward to reading it!

Dear Richard, thanks for a sensible comment. I intend to pursue a computer simulation model route using geometry rather than mathematical formulae. Something akin to the Durham University model, which I think looks like the most unelegant answer to creation I've ever seen. In reality, the start of it all has got to be very simple. Even Einstein says that an initial simple mental picture is the key to success.

Obviously using some maths. I don't believe that supporters of the Standard Model have a simple mental picture of creation. Simplicity is the key. I know it's all words until I pull something professional out the bag. I have a wonderful visual solution for the cosmological expansion. Epiphany-inducing. You're right, I'm worried someone's going to pinch my ideas. I hoping some other hapless fool clicks with my thinking.

Which model are you referring to?A couple of references to published papers would be much appreciated!

Richard

I confess that my knowledge of the Durham University work came solely from the TV. It was the standard model cobbled together to produce graphics which resembled the pictures from Hubble. I wasn't impressed and neither was Brian Cox if I remember correctly.

It doesn't matter how often you say "Bored chemist, you keep forgetting that ocean currents are a major influence on the location of Earth's highest tides. As a general rule, the highest tides ARE found on the west coasts.".2 of the 3 highest are on the East.Ignoring mathematics' importance in science will make you look odd.Ignoring the facts makes you look a fool.

I would suggest a good literature search to find out if anything has been done previously in the area you want to explore. If I'm allowed to post links to external sites, here are a couple:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html[nofollow]http://adsabs.harvard.edu/preprint_service.html[nofollow]You can search there for any published or preprinted paper in any area of physics/astronomy, so there should be something there relevant for you. At least it should give you some ideas of what has already been covered.